That Maleficent includes a metaphorical rape scene doesn’t make it a bad movie. That it celebrates a heroine with such clear and intentional satanic resonances does.

The fact that you see the removal of Maleficent’s wings as a representation of rape or genital mutilation, in my opinion, exposes to me your “master of suspicion” attitude toward the film. The removal of her wings need not be so much a representation of spiritual rape as a death of innocence of a young girl by a man suffering from selfish concupiscence. Isn’t this indeed the state of reality we live in today in our society?

Maleficent’s innocence was stolen and she hardens her heart. The visualization of this when she sits upon her throne (which appears to be a rib cage; she is hiding inside her heart, queen of her own heart) and builds up the wall of thorns to prevent any other from entering. Can’t we all relate to this? Haven’t we all been wounded so deeply that we close our hearts?

The scene where her heart begins to soften while observing the innocence of Aurora. She is overcome with memories and puts Aurora into a sleep because she is not ready to open her heart again. It’s too painful to remember her lost innocence.

I truly am extremely disappointed in your review and the fact that you have shed such a negative light on to a movie that I see has such theological relevance.

I’m always glad to hear that someone has appreciated or benefited from a movie I criticized. I have no need to persuade everyone to see movies the same way I do, and no wish to deprive anyone of any enjoyment, enlightenment or edification they have received while watching a movie, no matter what I thought of the movie.

For what it’s worth, shortly after I received your email, Angelina Jolie gave an interview in which she confirmed that both she and screenwriter Linda Woolverton were “very conscious” of the force of Stefan maiming Maleficent by hacking off her wings as “a metaphor for rape.” So far from being suspicious, I wasn’t even criticizing or judging the film on that ground. It was an observation, not an accusation. I did say it was “a pretty dark subtext for a PG movie,” but that was by way of parental advisory, not criticism.

However, we can’t (or at any rate I can’t) watch a movie like Maleficent without comparing and contrasting it with its source material, the story of Sleeping Beauty, particularly in Disney’s 1959 animated film. (This is something I could have brought out more clearly in my review. For what it’s worth, my review written within 12 hours of seeing the film, which is not ideal. I like to have at least a day to chew over a film before writing my review.)

A revisionistic retelling like this — particularly one that ties in so closely in some ways to the previous telling — demands to be seen through the lens of what biblical scholars call “redaction criticism.” This basically means asking what was changed, added or deleted in this retelling of the story, and what those changes suggest about this particular storyteller’s intentions, outlook and attitude toward the prior version of the story.

Seen through that lens, what stands out to me is this.

An entirely good character in the animated film, King Stefan, has been turned into an entirely unsympathetic, cruel, ambitious monster of a man. His motives are important: He horrifically victimizes Maleficent, not out of malice, but out of ambition for power in a patriarchal system. (Note that the old king has daughters but no sons, so his heir will be, not one of his daughters, but the random man to whom he gives his daughter’s hand in marriage. In this patriarchal world the princesses matter only as a prize to be won and a stepping-stone to the throne.)

Maleficent herself — one of the most iconically evil, even satanic characters in all of Disney history, the self-professed “mistress of all evil” in league with “all the powers of hell” (with a raven called Diablo), who turns into a dragon and does battle with a Christian knight bearing the cross on the “shield of virtue” and wielding the “sword of truth” — has been turned into a basically sympathetic victim and heroine.

Prince Philip, perhaps the most iconically heroic male character in any Disney animated film ever, bearing allegorical arms evocative of Ephesians 6, has been reduced to a useless walk-on and a comic prop with absolutely nothing to contribute or accomplish. No dragon-fighting, no Christian warrior armor and certainly no true love’s kiss.

The three good fairies who support King Stefan against Maleficent — silly and incompetent in the original, but still capable of effective action at times, from countering Maleficent’s curse to freeing Prince Philip from captivity and equipping him with his magical armor — are now completely incompetent and useless. Not only does the third good fairy’s interrupted gift no longer matter, Maleficent herself must actually protect and care for Aurora from infancy, or she would have died many times over.

The cumulative effect of all these changes is to invert the moral world of the original story: The satanic villain is actually the victim heroine; the traditional, patriarchal cultural system that condemns her is actually evil. If this isn’t quite sympathy for the devil, it’s only one step away from Gnostic-inflected stories, such as Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials, in which Satan is characterized as a heroic rebel against a tyrant creator-god figure (the ultimate patriarch).

Even though Maleficent is a heroine, she is still presented as a satanic figure. Her iconic horns (which Disney artist Marc Davis, who designed Maleficent, explicitly says were inspired by the traditional look of the devil, to “frighten everybody half to death”) are present even before Stefan’s betrayal. Her raven, called Diablo in his animated form, is here called “Diaval” — a name that looks like a portmanteau of “Diablo” and its English cognate “Devil.”

Added to this, I can’t help seeing this film partly in light of Woolverton’s last revisionist fairy tale, Alice in Wonderland: an exercise in what I’ve called “Squelched Girl Syndrome,” i.e., the gender feminist narrative of how patriarchal society systematically robs young girls of their specialness.

Maleficent seems to me to express a similar point of view. If, say, Prince Philip, Stefan’s wife or the good fairies had been stronger characters, or if the film had held out redemption to Stefan, I might have seen it differently.

None of this invalidates the elements you saw in the film or the experience you had of it. I am suggesting, though, that your positive experience of the film in some measure owes more to your own worldview and perspective than to that of the filmmakers or to the film itself.

If you disagree with some or all of this, that’s okay. No one has to agree with me. I’m not the pope of movies. There is no pope of movies. Even the pope isn’t the pope of movies.

Comments

“The fact that you see the removal of Maleficent’s wings as a representation of rape or genital mutilation”

There is no fact there, because it is wrong. This is a tale of a story, and told in a very distorted manner. The lost of the wings represent exactly as what it was, the inability of accession.

It is funny how the very same old story is told by Hollywood over and over and yet over, and no one seems to connect the dots. In this movie is obvious, but the same story is present in many movies. Comedy movies, romantic movies, war movies, and no one seems the wiser.

Thanks to everyone for your contributions so far to a stimulating and hopefully enlightening discussion.

I’d like to ask everyone to hold forth in a spirit of courtesy and mutual respect, even if you’re not always sure other people have extended you that courtesy.

A soft answer turns away wrath. Overcome evil with good. Turn the other cheek. All that stuff.

Thanks, everyone.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 6:03 PM (EDT):

@reevaluate some things: Do men, who are not stupid, actually anywhere imagine “a female uprising”? See the thing about the sexes is, they are two halves of the same community; women always have more in common with the men in their lives than they do with other women who are not part of their lives. A woman of a Japanese buke clan (a samurai) had more in common with a male samurai than with a Victorian English upper middle-class matron.
-
And the movement one might, inaccurately, call “a female uprising”, has mostly been a puppet for some largely-male concern. The push to get women in the workplace coincided with the labor movement, when male workers were demanding better wages—those first women in to work were SCABS, willing to work for less pay because they’d been told work as such was necessary to their dignity in society. (People with incentives other than gain to accept employment will accept that employment for less gain: it is an iron law of economics, a special-case of supply and demand.)
-
Women received the vote when they did because the Labour Party, in the UK, and the Republicans, here, weren’t doing as well with the old electorate (every expansion of the franchise has pretty much been a form of gerrymandering, however correct universal suffrage may be in the abstract). And as for the current, post “sexual revolution” form of “feminism”...one of its leading lights, Simone Beauvoir, was Jean-Paul Sartre’s much-abused codependent doormat-mistress, who put up with years of emotional and physical abuse and infidelity, and probably even let him sign his name to some of her work. It currently defends men like Hugh Hefner and Bill Clinton. Shall I go on, or do you grasp the pattern yet?
-
There was something to be said for women going to work, and still more for them getting the vote; but the current form of “feminism” is about as good for women as Stalin (Simone Beauvoir’s hero) was for workers.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 5:42 PM (EDT):

@Dean: I said not a word about “my male needs”, and I cordially invite you to CHOKE on your undergrad “identity studies” analysis. ‘Nobody bats an eyelash when a female character is presented as weak’ is simply a LIE, absolute berserker defiance of the actual facts—any female character portrayed as even having FLAWS, as not perfect in every way, is actually denounced as a weakling and the portrayal as agitprop for the patriarchy, keeping women down. It is frankly appalling—I am livid—that you would so brazenly make such a flatly counterfactual assertion.
-
In actual fact male characters are routinely portrayed with every weakness under the sun, and regularly need women’s help not only to defeat the bad guys but practically to tie their shoes. Women in our movies now even outdo men in brute force, which is an “unrealistic expectation for women’s bodies” at least as bad as anything to do with beauty—do you really think a 105-pound Hollywood starlet’s character can drop even an average man with one punch? I can’t drop anyone with one punch, and I weigh 170 pounds, and actually practice martial arts.
-
And then these loser-men who need women to rescue them, STILL wind up getting the girls who do the saving; to paraphrase an essay—by a woman, not that it actually matters—critical of the “Strong female character” idea, “Damsels in Distress got saved by princes played by Clark Gable, and wound up with them at the end. Now the girls do the saving, of guys played by Shia LeBeouf, and they STILL wind up with the guy at the end. And this is supposed to be MORE empowering? At least the princes (who, again, Clark Gable rather than Shia LeBeouf) actually DID something for the damsel.”

“I read your wife’s review of Enchanted. It was a great review and it made me think that maybe it isn’t so much about differing male/female perspectives but more about our own personal life experiences which may heighten (or even lessen) our awareness of how various characters are portrayed.”

Thanks so much for your kind words.

“Own personal life experiences” is exactly correct, I think. One thing I’ve learned in 14 years as a film critic is that different takes on movies are rarely a matter of different people being more or less sensitive in general as being differently sensitive to different things. So a moral theme that stands out to one viewer as redemptive or pernicious may be invisible to another viewer, and the same viewers may find redemptive or harmful elements in the same film—and both may be right. (As an example of the opposite case, I found The Kid with a Bike deeply moving and morally compelling, but I’ve heard from people who got nothing out of it.)

Consequently, when readers tell me how much they enjoyed a film I found problematic, I’ve learned not to push back too hard. To the pure all things are pure, and I don’t begrudge anyone any benefit they got from any film (short of, like, pornography or something).

I do try to learn to see films as many different ways as I can, and to try to help educate readers to see the things, good and bad, I believe are there, and are important.

Maleficent certainly includes themes and elements that, in themselves, are positive and wholesome and which, in a different context, I would appreciate. I would venture to say that most of my problems with the film lie in the area of intertextuality, i.e., the way the film interacts with other stories from Disney’s Sleeping Beauty (with its Christian textual and subtextual elements) to various themes of moral inversion and gender feminism informing a lot of modern cinema.

Naturally, someone who has not been exposed to as much of these things as I have will respond to Maleficent very differently than I would, and again, there’s nothing wrong with that. At the same time, I would suggest that that these things are out there, and—if I am right—the more one sees and learns, the more sense my approach will make.

Of course I continue to learn and grow as a person myself, and it’s possible that in time I might come to see Maleficent in a different light than I do now. In general, though, I think I’ve gotten to a point where I can pretty reliably propose well-informed responses to films that can stand the test of time and the weight of cross-examination.

Not always, of course, and I do still make mistakes! But I hope I usually offer readers a thoughtful place to begin thinking about movies and working out their own opinions.

Posted by Steph on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 11:19 AM (EDT):

@SDG
I read your wife’s review of Enchanted. It was a great review and it made me think that maybe it isn’t so much about differing male/female perspectives but more about our own personal life experiences which may heighten (or even lessen) our awareness of how various characters are portrayed.
On another note, my 10 year old daughter just told me Maleficent was one of her favorite movies. She has seen most Disney movies and doesn’t usually seem to be affected by them…she rarely brings them up for discussion and seems to forget about them soon after leaving the theater. But she has been thinking about this one and was affected by the scene where Stefan steals her wings. This led to some really good discussion (on a 10 year old’s level)about the characters, their motives, behaviors, and consequences. I’m glad it was, at least, thought provoking for her.

I came across your initial review of Maleficent and this response by chance. I enjoyed reading it as well as the enlightening discussion that has followed.

I’ve also long objected to the type of narrative in which female characters eventually become strong only after first starting out weak, disspirited, crushed, etc.: what I’ve called “Squelched Girl Syndrome” or “Reviving Ophelia feminism.” As I wrote in my review of Monsters vs. Aliens, “In an age of fearless heroines like Tigress, Coraline, Giselle, Elastigirl, Elizabeth Swann and Hermione Granger, is this a story children will relate to?” Or should?

As recently as my review of Frozen I lamented that “Hollywood family fare, like mainstream Hollywood fare generally, remains thoroughly boy-centric — dishearteningly so, for this father of three daughters. For every Merida or Rapunzel, there are 10 male heroes or more.”

All to say, my objections to the depiction of Stefan and Philip in Maleficent are not the objections of some dude who’s just fine with passive, marginal female characters, but suddenly when it’s a guy it’s all completely different.

“This movie was geared towards females, why are you complaining that it didn’t pander to your male needs?”

This is such a bizarre thing to say. I don’t like seeing weak female characters; why should women like seeing weak male ones? That would be news to my wife Suzanne (read her guest review of Enchanted for a rebuttal that line of thought).

“When men imagine a female uprising, they imagine a world in which women rule men as men have ruled women.” -Sally Kempton

Posted by Dean on Monday, Jul 7, 2014 2:45 AM (EDT):

@Tom in AZ
While I understand where you’re coming from, not everything has to be about men.

Not every weak male character is a representation of the patriarchy or is meant to make the audience believe that all men are weak. It’s funny that no one bats an eyelash when a female character is presented as weak, but when it’s a man suddenly everyone’s up in arms.

This movie was geared towards females, why are you complaining that it didn’t pander to your male needs?

Stefan is just a male character presented as evil (he stole as a child) who had many opportunities to change his ways but chose not to.

Well said. (Though for the record my tally of the strengths and weaknesses of Avatar is a bit different from yours.)

I do think that when a work achieves a certain level of enthusiastic, devoted fandom — I would put the likes of Star Wars, Titanic, Twilight, Avatar and perhaps even the Transformers films in this category — at some point critical objections start to become somewhat irrelevant, and the critic must start asking what it is that these films, whatever their shortcomings, are actually doing well for their target audiences. Criticism must embrace a larger sociological or culture criticism if it is to have something meaningful to say about the appeal of such films.

It is certainly possible to look at Maleficent in this light as well, although it’s not the approach I chose for my critique. Perhaps if there’s a sequel I will.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Sunday, Jul 6, 2014 10:11 AM (EDT):

@Amanda: Know how much “50 Shades of Grey” has made? Know how much the Michael Bay Transformers movies each made? Know how much Twilight, books and movies, made? You know how much the porn industry makes?
-
Avatar made over a billion dollars, and is still the highest-grossing movie ever made—that doesn’t make it the BEST movie ever. It’s pretty and has the only entirely accurate spaceship in any SF movie that I’m aware of…which is in the film for about four minutes…but there is not one other thing it has going for it. (Just one example: if unobtainium is naturally occurring, on a planet humans can walk around on just wearing breath-masks, it is ipso facto easier to synthesize it than to schlepp lightyears to dig it up.)
-
A thing selling well is no indication, whatsoever, of its quality.

Regarding what male and female viewers are sensitive to: I can only tell you that my wife Suzanne is much more sensitive than I am to negative stereotyping of male characters. Read her guest review of Enchanted to see what I mean.

Posted by Steph on Saturday, Jul 5, 2014 10:20 PM (EDT):

@ Tom: Stefan was portrayed as a villain before he became a father in the movie. So, it’s not like he was this admirable father figure gone bad. But yes, I agree that there is an attack on the authority and dignity of both fathers AND mothers in our media. And that is very concerning.

I do think I was more in tune with the roles of the females because I am one and I think, naturally, men would be more sensitive to how the males were portrayed. Of course, the male committing a metaphorical rape is worse (than absentee mothers), but it does not make me stereotype all men as rapists. (Just as you cannot stereotype all fairies as good mother figures.)(Trying to be funny…)

And thank you for sharing the reasons for absentee mothers in fairy tales. I had considered the fact that many mothers died during childbirth, but had not thought about the rest. Interesting.

Posted by Amanda on Saturday, Jul 5, 2014 9:04 PM (EDT):

You are really asking for the attention aren’t you?, and you have certainly succeeded. If “Maleficent” is such a TERRIBLE movie, then why would it break past the $300 million marker? You are entitled to your opinions but something in your review had struck a nerve. For you to say it is laced with witchcraft and sympathy for the devil is absurd. Guess what Maleficent is a FAIRY. it’s a FAIRY TALE and they do spells and whatnot! Get over it! This is not a matter of just not liking it with you, you are using your hardcore beliefs on what a movie should be about and you are using them to justify your reasons why this movie sends a terrible message. okay maybe it wasn’t your typical Disney movie, but I am okay with that. Maybe that’s why I liked it so much because it’s not all about the princess or even the happily ever after. This movie breaks away from the norm, we live in the 21st century there are things that we won’t be able to hide from our children forever (that’s if you have any) . But if you are going to say this movie is bad because it’s against your beliefs , then don’t bother even going to the movies!!! Stay home and don’t ruin it for the rest of us!

Posted by Tom in AZ on Saturday, Jul 5, 2014 7:58 PM (EDT):

@Tim Williams: “Sympathy for the Devil” is a Rolling Stones song, and the phrase is often used for presenting the villain in a sympathetic manner, especially a revisionist one (like Fred Saberhagens’ “Dracula Tapes”). It has nothing to do with Satan as such.
-
@Steph: So, what about the concerted attack on the authority and dignity of fathers that’s been going on in our media since, oh, 1968 or so? You don’t think turning Stefan from a good if slightly buffoonish father into the villain of the piece, and that, one who commits a metaphorical rape, is significantly worse than the problem you’re claiming this movie addresses?
-
The reason mothers are dead or absent in so many fairy tales is mostly that women died in childbirth, a LOT, prior to about the 1920s (plus, narratively, giving your hero[ine] a stable home-life means it’s that much harder to kick ‘em out the door and onto an adventure, which is also why so many “Hero’s Journey” stories involve being raised by uncles). The reason for wicked stepmothers is that a step-parent actually IS a threat to the previous spouse’s child; go look up the crime stats sometime. Or read Hamlet. I can’t think of any evil mothers, though I believe the Perrault versions of several of the “classics” feature them—it’s said that one of the Grimm brothers was squeamish about that (as about much of the sex and violence and potty-humor that Perrault’s versions have), and changed several wicked mothers to stepmothers. (The mother as villain is the same as the “king who kills his brother to usurp the throne” as villain—a kinslayer is tantamount to a diabolist, in much of the world, and among the Indians where I live actually IS one.)

Posted by Steph on Saturday, Jul 5, 2014 12:21 PM (EDT):

As a woman and a mother, who is NOT a feminist, I wholeheartedly agree with Charles Jones and Tim Williams comments. I appreciate and understand the perspective of the initial review but feel that it is a reaction to rising immorality in our society, as well as our society’s focus on gender inequality. The film demonstrated that we are all capable of sin, and it demonstrated the consequences for those who repent and those who do not. It also showed the extraordinary force of motherly love and how it can affect one’s soul. I’m not an expert on the original Sleeping Beauty stories or Disney movies in general, but I recall, from my childhood, Disney movies where the mother figure is absent, abused, killed off in the beginning of the story, or evil in nature. And that has always bothered me. Although Aurora’s biological mother’s role in this movie was sorely lacking, Maleficent became the mother figure and that is what softened her evil heart. Loving someone else more than yourself is what saved her. And to me,that’s a better message than Prince Charming swooping in to save the day. Just my amateur opinion…

Posted by Mary on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 8:07 PM (EDT):

@TIm Williams THANK YOU!

I absolutely agree. Far too often Catholic viewers will scrutinize and look down on a film because it isn’t absolutely perfect or obviously Christian. But in doing so they are denying themselves some incredible stories!

Posted by TIm Williams on Monday, Jun 30, 2014 7:04 PM (EDT):

There is no sympathy for satan intended or implied in Maleficent. The original Maleficent was certainly evil, but the point of this storytelling is to flip the story on it’s head. This means they are constrained to some degree by looks and names. However, in this movie Maleficent is a fairy, not satan, nor satanic, nor evil, and this is very clear. Those horns have been turned in to fairy antennae like an insect and she is a good and innocent fairy. The movie does not paint evil as good, rather it shows how greed and evil choices by one person can encourage evil reactions by another. All true. Again, constrained by the original story there is no one else to make the villain other than Stefan. The man is evil and there is no intent to show all men, or Christianity, or Patriarchy as evil. It is still just the artistic exercise of turning the old story on it’s head - and telling good morals in the process!

In fact, Maleficent has some of the most beautifully portrayed Christian elements I have ever seen. How greed and selfishness can cause us to harm those near us. A wronged woman (the violence against women metaphor is genius and well done!) chooses evil - and it is still called evil in this movie. But, as many of us do, she comes to regret how her evil choices harm the innocent and someone she comes to love. What a powerful truth. We get angry, sin, and harm others, and regret it later.

There is a clear contrast made between one consumed by their sin when they refuse to repent (Stefan), and what true repentance can achieve. Maleficent tries to undo her evil, but like the sin we do, it often cannot be undone, It is only tearful, true, from the heart, repentance, and a lifelong commitment at restitution done in love, that undoes the sin with true loves kiss! I have never seen a better example on screen of true repentance. When have you ever seen a major character do a major evil and tearfully repent of the act! What a beautiful scene. What a powerful message about love and repentance and the spreading effects of sin!

With both Frozen and Maleficent, I find a one-two punch of Disney movies that contain fantastic themes that fit the Bible. I’ve already done a viewing in my home theater and Bible study on Frozen. I think I will do the same with Maleficent. What a great opportunity to discuss sin, evil choices, love and repentance.

It is all in how you want to look at it. We both may be reading between the lines, but I would rather find and point out the good.

Posted by Ted Seeber on Sunday, Jun 22, 2014 9:07 PM (EDT):

@Tom- it is often hard to tell the difference between chutzpah, cynicism, and ignorance.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Sunday, Jun 22, 2014 8:58 PM (EDT):

@really: From you, that constitutes “chutzpah”. Your every comment is nothing but simpering insinuations of bad motives on other people’s parts, or else ludicrously bigoted generalizations about multiple-century eras of the entire world’s past. If you didn’t have the argumentum ad hominem, you’d have no argument at all.

Posted by really on Sunday, Jun 22, 2014 3:03 PM (EDT):

@Tom in AZ Wow. The personal attacks really cemented the fact that you are clearly the better man here.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Sunday, Jun 22, 2014 8:34 AM (EDT):

@really: My point was that the (metaphorical) rape in this has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the (actual) one in the Perrault story; prove to me that the Woolverton creature even KNOWS the Perrault version. I was merely saying that the victim of the (metaphorical) rape in this version is the character known, in the vast majority of versions, as simply “the wicked fairy”, not the one known simply as “the princess”—so without further information it is likely the parallel is pure coincidence. I was certainly not saying that the victim of the (metaphorical) rape in this version was evil, and therefore it was okay. Honestly, how DARE you? That accusation is not only utterly vicious, it’s also completely baseless.
-
You claim you read the article; I reply that you might’ve decoded the words, but you didn’t actually comprehend their meaning. The point is that a revisionist version of a story, where the villain is fundamentally good, an innocent victim, and the heroes are either the real villains or at best totally powerless, is a BAD story. The addition of the metaphorical rape is just an attempt to insulate it from criticism—because, like Pavlov’s dogs salivating at the sound of a bell, little Good Germans like yourself can be relied upon to level the “rape apologist” accusations at anyone who criticizes the revisionism.
-
That you can only twist people’s words and accuse them of saying things they certainly did not say, indicates that you are fundamentally dishonest, and not interested in rational discourse. That you can only analyze things by the stunted, simplistic rubric of identity-politics indicates that you are a bad-faith ideologue. And that you apparently cannot understand the actual complaint involved in this criticism indicates that you are not mature enough to read fiction-criticism, much less do it yourself, or have opinions about how well or badly other people do it.

Posted by really on Saturday, Jun 21, 2014 3:40 PM (EDT):

I did read the article, and I watched the movie, and I know that it wasn’t Aurora who was metaphorically raped. They were paying homage to that part of the original story even though it happened to a different character. Just like how Captain Kirk died in Star Trek Into Darkness instead of Spock (as opposed to the original story it was based on).

“the evil fairy”
Are you serious? Maleficent (despite her name) isn’t evil in the beginning of the film. Yes they could have changed her name in the beginning so that she could assume the name Maleficent later, but that would have taken up valuable time and ended up feeling like a comic book villain transformation. She became vengeful because Stefan cut off her wings. If she was evil from the start she would have just killed him as a boy when he stole from HER forest.

And just because a character is “evil” (as you believe) Does NOT mean it’s okay that she was metaphorically raped.

While Sleeping Beauty was based off of the Tchaikovsky ballet, that doesn’t mean the movie Maleficent was as well.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Saturday, Jun 21, 2014 2:57 PM (EDT):

@really: Well, the rape this article is talking about is metaphorical, and committed against the evil fairy, not the princess, so…did you even read the article?
-
Besides, the Disney movie is based on the Tchaikovsky ballet, not the Perrault fairy-tale. There is no rape in the ballet.

Posted by really on Saturday, Jun 21, 2014 2:26 PM (EDT):

In some ways this movie was more true to the original story than the Disney movie was. The story wasn’t about true love’s kiss, or about someone saving Aurora.
When she had fallen into a deep sleep a king found her and repeatedly raped her. She sired two children from him, all while she was asleep. It was only after one of the children unintentionally removed the splinter from her finder that she woke up.
The original story was about rape and a loss of innocence. This movie not only represents that loss, but also DOES something about it. It lets the victim seek justice (albeit in the wrong way).

Posted by Tom in AZ on Saturday, Jun 21, 2014 2:11 PM (EDT):

@Charles Jones: A character whose name is the French for “evildoer” and who invokes “All the powers of Hell” can’t be seen as a Satanic figure? She can’t be seen as actually Satan himself, but are you sure you even really know what “Satanic figure” means?

Posted by Ted Seeber on Saturday, Jun 21, 2014 8:49 AM (EDT):

“The fact that you see the removal of Maleficent’s wings as a representation of rape or genital mutilation, in my opinion, exposes to me your “master of suspicion” attitude toward the film. The removal of her wings need not be so much a representation of spiritual rape as a death of innocence of a young girl by a man suffering from selfish concupiscence”

That’s the best definition of statutory rape I’ve ever seen, the death of innocence by a man suffering from selfish concupiscence.

Even the captcha agrees (why is it I get captchas on this site that are always relevant?): because97

Posted by Charles Jones on Friday, Jun 20, 2014 10:36 PM (EDT):

I respectfully disagree with the review. Spoilers follow:

I think the movie is deeper and more literary than the superficial review would indicate. Maleficent cannot be regarded as a Satanic figure, because we know as a theological matter that Satan is incapable of repentance. A great deal of the movie centers around the literary theme of repentance of a word spoken in anger. Maleficent ultimately grows to love as a daughter the baby who she cursed, and tries to revoke the curse, only to find - as many times we find when we sin - that she cannot revoke it. In this respect, she is not a figure of Satan (who does not love and who is not interested in undoing his evil) but a figure of man.

The wicked King Stefan is more a figure of Satan, the betrayer. He betrayed love in exchange for power, which is what Satan did. He also betrayed the first wicked King, in that he falsely claimed the throne. He made the old King believe that he had killed the fairy, by bringing her wings. Satan, the father of lies, falsely claims the throne of God.

I do see the argument about feminism in this movie, but I think that’s just looking at one side of it. Even if you take the wings thing as an image of rape - you could just as easily see a pro-life message in it; the baby was cursed to die as a result of the “rape,” but the woman who once hated the baby because of that rape ultimately grows to love her, and her true love’s kiss gives the gift of life.

It would have been nice if the good male characters had stronger roles, though my favourite character in the movie was Diaval, who was the one who first pointed out that there really might be such a thing as true love, which Maleficent did not believe. And it is presumable that Prince Philip became King of the two kingdoms.

I really enjoyed this movie for its literary qualities, its re-imagining and giving more depth to an old story. It’s the best movie I’ve seen this year by far.

I appreciate your kind words, and I’m gratified that my work has been helpful to you. (It does feel a bit odd to be praised for not insisting that I’m always absolutely right. That should be, like, a minimum qualifying requirement for being taken seriously as an arts writer. Should be, I say.)

Posted by Ellen on Friday, Jun 20, 2014 10:18 AM (EDT):

Steven, I appreciate so much your ability to discuss and disagree without ever being rude or uncharitable, or having to insist that you are always absolutely right. Also, your reviews are so insightful and I truly enjoy them—they have influenced my movie watching for the better.

Posted by mrscracker on Friday, Jun 20, 2014 9:53 AM (EDT):

John ,
Pretty much my thoughts, too.Hollywood for the most part is a moral vacuum.
The best films I’ve encountered recently were in the foreign films section at the library. Some recommendations: “The Ninth Day”, “Das Boot”,
“North Face”, & “After the Truth”, “Twilight Samurai.” Strange as it may sound, Iran makes some great movies, too.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Friday, Jun 20, 2014 9:02 AM (EDT):

@SDG: It seems to me that the only way to have done this story well would be to have Maleficent not be a fairy at all, and have her be a witch, instead—“Maleficent” being the French for “evildoer”, which is a Latin euphemism for “witch” as in e.g. “Malleus Maleficarum”.
-
Then you could show some desperation in her past that would make her seek the power of witchery (the anthropologist’s definition of “witchcraft” is “power gained by deliberate violation of a taboo of one’s own society”—incest, cannibalism, and kinslaying being the usual sources; obviously it’d take very creative handling to portray that in a Disney movie, even a PG one). Maybe to save someone dear to her? And then maybe have the power originally sought in order to save that someone gradually consume more and more of her conscience, until she sacrifices what she sought to protect with the power—that’s a common development of the theme, for a good reason.
-
Then, MAYBE, you could show her death, under the same terms as in the original movie, as being a release from the curse she brought onto herself. (This is starting to sound like a vampire movie.) THAT, conceivably, could be pulled off. This cosmic-inversion where the openly-diabolical witch is actually an innocent victim of patriarchy is, at BEST, PC, and at worst, utterly scurrilous.

Posted by M2M on Friday, Jun 20, 2014 7:43 AM (EDT):

I understand what you are saying about good and evil…but I wanted to add that it is also true, that many times there is an underlying background or event which causes someone to behave a certain way (abuse, etc.). It is also true that love can change those hardened hearts. I have experienced both myself and know first hand that love can bring out the good.

You’re right that Maleficent never demands worship. But neither does the dark one in my story. All he wants is for people to have the same freedom he does, not to serve the so-called everlasting one. In the context of my story, that appears to be good, because the so-called everlasting one is a deceiver. So what’s the problem?

Allow me to answer my own question. The problem is that this story impinges far too closely on the True Story, with too many obvious connections and parallels that make its inversion of the True Story unavoidable.

(It’s not exactly Pullman, though there are overlaps. It’s a generic Gnostic-style narrative, though in a more typical Gnostic narrative the physical world is actually made by the evil god, but this physical world is an evil trap for spirits who become entangled in it.)

Maleficent obviously isn’t anything like this subversive. The story it most directly taps into and inverts is not the True Story, but Disney’s Sleeping Beauty.

But Disney’s Sleeping Beauty is itself more directly plugged into the True Story than any other Disney film or perhaps popular animated film I can think of: the Christian knight, the Ephesians 6 armor, the devil-horned villain allied with “Diablo” and “all the powers of hell” who transforms into a dragon and battles the Christian knight, etc.

Maleficent baldly inverts this story. Not 100 percent; the Christian knight doesn’t become a villain, merely a genially useless character. But the villain, the most obviously and explicitly satanic character in any Disney narrative feature, is the heroine. I don’t see how you can dismiss this simply by saying “But in this film she’s a moral character!” Yes, she is. That’s the problem.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Friday, Jun 20, 2014 5:47 AM (EDT):

@David S: The royalty of the fairies ARE gods. The Tuatha de Danaan are the same thing as the Daoine Sidhe (the pagan Irish gods are the modern Irish fairies); the Vanir are the same thing as the light elves (and the Jötnar are the same thing as the trolls). In Greece and India the nymphs and dryads (or their Hindu equivalents, like apsaras) are explicitly minor gods, members of the same race as the Olympians and Titans or Devas and Asuras. “Fairy queen” = “goddess”. Nobody even as well-versed in European fairy-lore as the average Wiccan—and Wiccans are to real European folklore what the Flat Earth Society are to astrophysics—would miss that, even if the film doesn’t come out and say it. Do we even really have to spell out the significance of a “goddess” wronged by “patriarchal” ambition, in a feminist retelling of a fairy-tale?

Posted by David S on Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 11:10 PM (EDT):

I suppose without knowing for sure that that’s Pullman. Within his work, clearly up is down and dark is light. Perhaps (and I doing a bit of feeling as I go here) one key differentiator between this story and MALEFICENT is *worship*, which Maleficent never demands. She is faerie queen, but not goddess.

Moreover, the world of the story you brought up is one where wars are fought over to whom to make obeisance, whereas in MALEFICENT no subject ever seriously questions their ruler’s right to rule, much less tries switching sides. It’s a world where everyone knows their place—whereas Satan’s defining characteristic was moving above his station.

Hopefully I’m still making sense. Not sure I’ll comment further-I may have already exhausted having anything useful to say.

Dude, my “You know how to hurt a guy” line was entirely facetious. My feelings aren’t nearly that sensitive! I just meant I’ve put a lot of thought over many years into staking out what I think is a consistent, flexible position that avoids the extremes of reactionary rigor and permissive sophistry. Naturally I resist the suggestion that I’ve been sucked onto one side or the other, though I get both accusations all the time.

Let me tell you a story.

Once there was a world of many tribes, some of whom worshiped this and some of whom worshiped that. By the sea lived sailors who feared gods of ocean and wind. In the forests lived people who served gods of wood. In valley countries lived farmers who worshiped river spirits.

But there was one people who laughed at all the others, who worshiped none but the everlasting one who lived with his servants of light in the sky, who had made the earth and sky and all that was in them. This people feared no other gods, who were no gods at all, or else were former servants of the everlasting one, bright ones who had who had betrayed their maker and become dark, and were cast down from the sky to haunt the deep places of the earth.

But one of these dark ones was wiser than all others, wiser even the everlasting one himself. This dark one knew what the people of everlasting one and his servants in the sky did not know: that the everlasting one had deceived them from the beginning. He was not everlasting at all, nor had he made the world or the bright ones. He was merely the oldest and strongest of the bright ones, and had made the others his servants by telling them that they were his handiwork. He cared nothing for the people he called his own, only for their praise and worship which made him strong while enslaving them.

The deception of the so-called everlasting one and the slavery of his people was more than the dark one and his followers could bear. Though they faced relentless warfare and hostility from the everlasting one and his servants that caused them endless pains, the dark ones never ceased their noble efforts to lead the people of the everlasting one to knowledge of the truth and true freedom.

In that story, who is good and who is evil?

Posted by David S on Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 9:13 PM (EDT):

I’m not familiar enough with Pullman’s devils, sadly, to respond to that point. But I’m pretty secure in the point re: Maleficent: it’s not the *moral* world of SLEEPING BEAUTY that’s been inverted-good is still good. Not once in MALEFICENT are evil *actions* called good, and that’s why I wouldn’t give it a D were I to rate it.

I like Pachyderminator’s points. The iconography of the old story was somewhat sloppily slapped onto a pretty moving tale of hurt and healing. If I had to rate it overall, I’d probably say B-.

I don’t think Aurora is passive. She chooses to pursue a relationship with M when M doesn’t want one, and then she chooses to leave M behind. She (of course) can’t free herself from the curse, but the way she delivers herself up to it is tragic in a way which seems to me appropriate to how a young, wounded woman in search of love would *act*. That’s interesting to me-Aurora’s not uninspiring in part because she’s not 100% a role model, she feels more like a flesh and blood character. M is of course the main character, and at the climax her actions are what matters.

I’m sorry to have hurt you, SDG. I didn’t mean that you’ve warned anyone about this movie in extreme terms, just that the horns and names seem to me to be used unreflectively, and your insistence on reflecting on them may be overemphasis.

Posted by John on Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 8:52 PM (EDT):

SDG, thanks for your honest, intelligent and perceptive review(s) of Maleficent. Frankly, almost everything that comes out of Hollywood is morally vacant and designed to poison the weak-minded viewer, of which most of us are. My suggestion to all is to stop paying to watch this garbage and pick up a book about a saint’s life. There is where one can encounter true heroes, and have sympathies worthy of true Christians.

Posted by Marcheline on Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 7:57 PM (EDT):

This article is a spoof, correct? You are being intentionally hyperbolic & hysterical about Satab bc you are mocking fundamentalist responses to the film, right? Like The Onion but for Catholics? Because otherwise I am deeply concerned for you. And our country.

Posted by Tom in AZ on Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 5:40 PM (EDT):

With regard to “Diaval”...to paraphrase Dragonheart, “So instead of calling him ‘devil’ in Spanish you call him ‘devil’ in Welsh?” (Or Irish—the Welsh is spelled “diafol”, the Irish “diabhal”; I’m pretty sure “diabhal” is actually pronounced “dival”—like the stereotypical Irish English pronunciation of “devil”—but you think most Disney writers know that?)
-
Linda Woolverton’s feminism is something like the race-theories in Robert Howard, except one’s work is brainless pulp exploitation, and the other is about barbarians. Howard at least gave Conan the flaws of a barbarian, as well as the virtues—he’s superstitious and vindictive, entirely willing to kill someone over a petty slight. Where does Maleficent have the flaws of a fairy, like the total lack of pity or proportion? A fairy who is snubbed from a christening-invitation could easily see it as appropriate to curse the child in question to death; one who was (somehow) wronged the way this version has Maleficent wronged wouldn’t stop at a SMALL “mountain of corpses”.

Excellent points. I agree that Maleficent is not a good film, but I would say it’s at least an interesting train wreck, and the rape subtext is one of the reasons. The “morning after” scene where Maleficent discovers her wings are missing is a genuinely powerful one. This film is more serious than much of the pseudo-feminist fractured-fairy-tale stuff coming out these days, even though it fails to intelligently deconstruct its source material.

An idea in the film that could have been interesting was the antipathy between the kingdom of men and the fairy realm, which apparently has been there since time immemorial. Humans think that all fairies are “maleficent,” at least in relation to them. It’s true that the use of the name early in the film, when Maleficent is called that even by the other fairies and while she was entirely good and innocent, is nonsensical. However, I can’t help thinking that the film is trying to do something interesting when it has the (human) narrator, Aurora, pronounce the word “maleficent” with such a caress in her voice in the closing voice-over.

As for the third fairy, by the way, we are given a way to guess what her gift was or would have been. Before Maleficent storms in, she says, “My gift is that you will find…” The first words that come to mind to complete this sentence are “true love.” And this is exactly what happened, by the film’s rules, which Maleficent believed impossible. Perhaps it’s possible that this fairy wasn’t so ineffective after all?

Good point, Evan. (Well, of course I agree, I said as much in my review. But that’s certainly a problem with David’s “strong, clear break from floopy, uninspiring Disney Princesses” thesis.)

Posted by Evan on Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 4:42 PM (EDT):

May I just add that I found Aurora to be every bit as passive/useless as the traditional Disney princess. The only difference is, instead of doing nothing while waiting for Prince Charming to save her, she does nothing while waiting for Maleficent to save her. I don’t view that as an improvement.

“Remember those folks who warned that the HP books/films were “playing with fire” because children might experiment with Satanism and witchcraft?”

I do. What similar warning have I issued here?

“Diaval is ‘satanic’ in the same way Hermione uses ‘witchcraft’, no?”

“Witch” and “devil” are not quite parallel terms, as I pointed out a decade ago in my review of Hellboy.

“Disney needed a strong, clear break from the sort of floopy, uninspiring Princesses it had featured in the past. I’d be truly dismayed if a daughter of mine wanted to emulate Disney Princess (tm) femininity.”

Don’t hold your breath. Frozen is the highest grossing animated film in history. Disney Princesses are Here to Stay.

“BTW, the Prince is a bit young, but not such a bad character after all.”

He’s not bad. Just useless. He has no plot function at all. He’s in the movie solely to fail, to not save the princess or accomplish anything else.

Posted by David Smedberg on Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 3:48 PM (EDT):

The “step away” from something like Pullman is really quite a bit more than one step, SDG. Maleficent and Diaval are both deeply moral characters, inspired by honorable and traditional values. The name Maleficent seems inappropriate to the character-a misstep, but one that doesn’t mean I write off the character as a result.

In my view, you’ve succumbed to “Harry Potter” syndrome. Remember those folks who warned that the HP books/films were “playing with fire” because children might experiment with Satanism and witchcraft? Diaval is “satanic” in the same way Hermione uses “witchcraft”, no?

The traditional, patriarchal culture of MALEFICENT is indeed the true villain of the movie. That’s not actually such a bad thing, I don’t think, because Disney needed a strong, clear break from the sort of floopy, uninspiring Princesses it had featured in the past. I’d be truly dismayed if a daughter of mine wanted to emulate Disney Princess (tm) femininity.

BTW, the Prince is a bit young, but not such a bad character after all. He seems like an honest and good chap. The 3 fairies are the real dopes here, and I agree that their characters are disappointing.

The meaning is not too deep. With respect to the rape subtext, I saw it. Many people saw it. And then the star confirmed that both she and the screenwriter were aware of it. It’s right there, for those with eyes to see.

Posted by John on Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 2:07 PM (EDT):

I am sympathetic to people who want to just watch and enjoy these movies without thinking about them too much, but for a movie like ‘Maleficent’ this is just not possible (especially if you are even slightly invested in the underlying messages of the original, ‘Sleeping Beauty’).

A movie is never “just a movie” anymore, especially when there are feminist axes to grind.

Posted by Judy on Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 1:30 PM (EDT):

Thank you for your review. I left the movie feeling…oh, I don’t know…disappointed, but I couldn’t put my finger on it exactly and no one in my party could understand when I tried to communicate it. I don’t like when good stories are turned “upside down”, let’s leave it at that. Reading your review made me exclaim, “That’s it exactly!!” Thanks and God Bless!!!

Posted by Donald Link on Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 1:20 PM (EDT):

Sometimes a motion picture is just a motion picture. It may have some deeper meaning for its creator but if the meaning is too deep, then all you have is entertainment and should largely be viewed as such.

Thank you for your reviews of these films. It’s good to know which ones I can take my kids to and which ones to avoid. Personally, “Sleeping Beauty” has always been a favorite, so I’ll just re-watch that one with the kids and pop a bowl of popcorn.

Is there any better line spoken in any Disney film than, “Sword of truth fly swift and sure that evil die and good endure”? I think not.

Posted by Andrew on Thursday, Jun 19, 2014 11:29 AM (EDT):

I do wonder, though, if perhaps the people responsible for “Maleficent” didn’t think about it as much as you did.

I think they were just trying to take the “useless woman, evil woman” dynamic from the first movie (Aurora and Maleficent), which allowed for a male hero, to a “useless man, evil man” dynamic (Philip and Steffan) where women could be the powerful, plot-essential movers.

I think they failed at it, and I think their ham-handed approach to move their version of feminism to the forefront was simplistic and overall, a failure. But I also think they weren’t setting out for a clever redaction critical approach.

Excellent points about the film’s moral inversion of its source material.

In addition to Maleficent’s horn and the crow’s name, one could also note that the very word “maleficent” itself means “working or productive of harm or evil”. It makes sense that Maleficent would have this name in the original film, where she proudly proclaims herself “the mistress of all evil”. It does not make sense that she would have this name in the new film—at least not at the beginning, when she is very much a good fairy.

Incidentally, with regard to Maleficent losing her wings, a friend of mine had an interesting theory to the effect that one of the subtexts here might be the double mastectomy that Angelina Jolie recently had so that she would not get the breast cancer that has affected other women in her family. I haven’t seen anyone else raise that possibility, though.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Steven D. Greydanus

Steven D. Greydanus is film critic for the National Catholic Register and Decent Films, the online home for his film writing. He writes regularly for Christianity Today, Catholic World Report and other venues, and is a regular guest on several radio shows. Steven has contributed several entries to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, including “The Church and Film” and a number of filmmaker biographies. He has also written about film for the Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy. He has a BFA in Media Arts from the School of Visual Arts in New York, and an MA in Religious Studies from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Overbrook, PA. He is pursuing diaconal studies in the Archdiocese of Newark. Steven and Suzanne have seven children.